On Friday July 11 2008, Andre Nathan wrote:
On Thu, 2008-07-10 at 16:52 -0700, Don Stewart wrote:
Well, they're radically different graph representations, and fgl
hasn't been designed for large graphs.
Do you know if King and Launchbury's implementation (Data.Graph) scales
better?
Looks
gsan:
On Friday July 11 2008, Andre Nathan wrote:
On Thu, 2008-07-10 at 16:52 -0700, Don Stewart wrote:
Well, they're radically different graph representations, and fgl
hasn't been designed for large graphs.
Do you know if King and Launchbury's implementation (Data.Graph) scales
On Friday July 11 2008, Don Stewart wrote:
Do you have the bencmark code? I'd like to try a couple of variants on
the underlying structures.
It's not a thorough test but I suppose it gives an impression about
performance.
-- Gokhan
$ ghc -O -prof --make TestGraph
$ ./TestGraph +RTS -s -P
Hello
I'm trying to create a directed graph using the Data.Graph.Inductive.
The graph is a random graph using the G(n, p) model, that is, each of
the n nodes is linked to every other node with probability p.
I'm seeing a large increase of memory usage when n grows (this is using
p = 0.1):
n =
On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 4:57 PM, Andre Nathan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello
I'm trying to create a directed graph using the Data.Graph.Inductive.
The graph is a random graph using the G(n, p) model, that is, each of
the n nodes is linked to every other node with probability p.
So the
On Thu, 2008-07-10 at 18:32 -0400, Ronald Guida wrote:
Your ratios are about 1 : 3 : 8.
That pretty close to quadratic growth, 1 : 4 : 9, so I think all is well.
Maybe, but 96MB of resident memory for a 1000-node graph looks bad,
especially considering p is low. Is the internal representation
andre:
On Thu, 2008-07-10 at 18:32 -0400, Ronald Guida wrote:
Your ratios are about 1 : 3 : 8.
That pretty close to quadratic growth, 1 : 4 : 9, so I think all is well.
Maybe, but 96MB of resident memory for a 1000-node graph looks bad,
especially considering p is low. Is the internal
On Thu, 2008-07-10 at 16:52 -0700, Don Stewart wrote:
Well, they're radically different graph representations, and fgl
hasn't been designed for large graphs.
Do you know if King and Launchbury's implementation (Data.Graph) scales
better?
What C library is Ruby's binding to? It might be quite
